For the first time in decades, the U.S. and Russia have no limits on nuclear weapons

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: NPR

The world's two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, no longer have any limits on their arsenals.

At midnight on Thursday, a 15-year-old treaty called New START expired, and with it, caps on the number of weapons the two sides could deploy on missiles, bombers and submarines.

"There are no more guardrails on the sizes of the United States and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals," said Christine Wormuth, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an arms control advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "That has not been the case for decades."

President Trump posted on social media on Thursday, "Rather than extend 'NEW START' (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future."

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5697382/new-start-nuclear-treaty-expired-us-russia

[wcmagumba]

1. Probably doesn't matter as each side was already allowed some 5,000 or so nukes.

That's more than enough to end all or most human life and destroy the Earth, nuclear winter and what not...

[popsdenver]

2. Doesn't seem

any one has been observing limits anyways........The nations have 1,000 times more nuclear weapons than the amount needed to obliterate all life on planet earth.......

If ONE goes, they ALL go folks

[SergeStorms]

3. That's reassuring.

Considering both Putin and Trump are egomaniacal dipshits and crazier than shithouse rats.

[Doodley]

4. We have a simpleton megalomaniac with dementia who could end us all on a whim. What could go wrong?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. MaddowBlog-As the New START treaty expires, is Trump prepared for what happens next?

The president said in July that New START is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.” Then it expired.

Seven months ago, Trump said that the New START treaty is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.”

Yesterday, it expired.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-05T18:22:42.230Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/as-the-new-start-treaty-expires-is-trump-prepared-for-what-happens-next

The terms of the agreement lasted 10 years, though the policy included the option for a five-year extension, which Joe Biden embraced.

That kept the policy intact through Feb. 4, 2026. It’s now Feb. 5, 2026. The Washington Post reported:

For decades, the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals have been constrained by a series of treaties. But that changed Thursday, when the last remaining nuclear arms limitation treaty between the United States and Russia, known as New START, expired.

Russia said in September it is willing to continue adhering to the central limitations of the treaty for at least another year, if Washington does likewise — but the Trump administration has yet to officially respond to the offer.

This wasn’t inevitable. In fact, it was easy to predict the opposite outcome after Trump said last summer that New START is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.”....

Nevertheless, with the expiration of New START, what happens now? Georgia Cole, a research analyst at British foreign policy think tank Chatham House, told the Post that in the absence of the policy, the U.S. and Russia could build up their nuclear warheads and launchers “unchecked.”

“This would raise the risk of miscalculation, accidents and unintended escalation — especially in a crisis,” she added. “It would also encourage China to continue accelerating its nuclear buildup to reach parity.”

Reuters reported that U.S. and Russian officials might yet agree to temporarily maintain the terms of New START despite its expiration, which would likely ease the fears of many international observers.

But in the meantime, amid growing uncertainty, many are wondering whether the nuclear arms control era is over, and the underlying question needs an answer from a White House that barely seems to care.